498 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration
intergroup relations than do Whites (Dovidio & Gaertner,
1998; Hochschild, 1995). Majority group members tend to
perceive intergroup interactions as more harmonious and pro-
ductive than do minority group members (S. Gaertner et al.,
1996; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; see also the survey of college
students discussed earlier), but they also tend to perceive sub-
ordinate and minority groups as encroaching on their rights
and prerogatives (Bobo, 1999). In addition, majority and
minority group members have different preferences for the
ultimate outcomes of intergroup contact. Whereas minority
group members often tend to want to retain their cultural iden-
tity, majority group members may favor the assimilation of
minority groups into one single culture (a traditional melting
pot orientation): the dominant culture (e.g., Horenczyk, 1996).
Berry (1984; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992)
presented four forms of cultural relations in pluralistic soci-
eties that represent the intersection of “yes–no” responses to
two relevant questions: (a) Is cultural identity of value, and to
be retained? (b) Are positive relations with the larger society
of value, and to be sought? These combinations reflect four
adaptation strategies for intergroup relations: (a) integration,
when cultural identities are retained and positive relations
with the larger society are sought; (b) separation, when cul-
tural identities are retained but positive relations with the
larger society are not sought; (c) assimilation, when cultural
identities are abandoned and positive relations with the larger
society are desired; and (d) marginalization, when cultural
identities are abandoned and are not replaced by positive
identification with the larger society.
Research in the area of immigration suggests that immi-
grant groups and majority groups have different preferences
for these different types of group relations. Van Oudenhoven,
Prins, and Buunk (1998) found in the Netherlands that Dutch
majority group members preferred an assimilation of minority
groups (in which minority group identity was abandoned and
replaced by identification with the dominant Dutch culture),
whereas Turkish and Moroccan immigrants most strongly en-
dorsed integration (in which they would retain their own cul-
tural identity while also valuing the dominant Dutch culture).
These preferences also apply to the preferences of Whites
and minorities about racial and ethnic group relations in the
United States. Dovidio, Gaertner, and Kafati (2000) have
found that Whites prefer assimilation most, whereas racial
and ethnic minorities favor pluralistic integration. Moreover,
these preferred types of intergroup relations for majority and
minority groups—a one-group representation (assimilation)
for Whites and dual representation (pluralistic integration)
for racial and ethnic minorities—differentially mediated
the consequences of intergroup contact for the different
groups. Specifically, for Whites, more positive perceptions
of intergroup contact related to stronger superordinate (i.e.,
common group) representations, which in turn mediated
more positive attitudes to their school and other groups at the
school. In contrast, for minority students, a dual-identity
(integration) representation—but not the one-group represen-
tation—predicted more positive attitudes toward their school
and to other groups. In general, these effects were stronger
for people higher in racial-ethnic identification, both for
Whites and minorities.
These findings have practical as well as theoretical
implications for reducing intergroup conflict and enhancing
social harmony. Although correlational data should be inter-
preted cautiously, it appears that for both Whites and racial
and ethnic minorities, favorable intergroup contact may con-
tribute to their commitment to their institution. However,
strategies and interventions designed to enhance satisfaction
need to recognize that Whites and minorities may have dif-
ferent ideals and motivations. Because White values and cul-
ture have been the traditionally dominant ones in the United
States, American Whites may see an assimilation model—in
which members of other cultural groups are absorbed into
the mainstream—as the most comfortable and effective
strategy. For racial and ethnic minorities, this model, which
denies the value of their culture and traditions, may be per-
ceived not only as less desirable but also as threatening to
their personal and social identity—particularly for people
who strongly identify with their group. Thus, efforts to
create a single superordinate identity, though well inten-
tioned, may threaten one’s social identity, which in turn can
intensify intergroup bias and conflict. As Bourhis, Moise,
Perrault, and Sebecal (1997) argued with respect to the
nature of immigrant and host community relations, conflict
is likely to be minimized and social harmony fostered
when these groups have consonant acculuration ideals and
objectives.CONCLUSIONSIn this chapter we have examined the fundamental psycholog-
ical processes related to intergroup relations, group conflict,
social harmony, and intergroup integration. Intergroup bias
and conflict are complex phenomena having historical, cul-
tural, economic, and psychological roots. In addition, these
are dynamic phenomena that can evolve to different forms
and manifestations over time. A debate about whether a soci-
etal, institutional, intergroup, or individual level of analysis is
most appropriate, or a concern about which model of bias or
bias reduction accounts for the most variance, not only may
thus be futile but may also distract scholars from a more